This is the first post in a week-long series in which Jon will read the entire Qur’an, cover-to-cover. You can read the rest of the series and engage in the discussion at his blog, Reading the Qur’an in a Week.
I find myself with some time to spare and little to do. I have decided to spend it on something worthwhile: reading one of the most influential texts ever published.
I am an atheist and an anti-theist. While I am unlikely to be convinced of the fact of the prophet Muhammad’s revelation, I consider a knowledge of his writing an important part of my intellectual formation.
I will follow the reading plan set out on the Islamic Awakening forum, beginning on Friday 23rd September 2011, using this version of the text: M.A.S. Abdel Haleem (trans.), The Qur’an, Oxford University Press (Oxford World’s Classics), 2008
I hope you find my reflections informative. Your views are welcome—as long as they are expressed calmly and intelligently.
Introduction
M.A.S Abdel Haleem’s translation of the Qur’an includes an extensive introduction incorporating history, grammar and various illustrative interpretations of Qur’anic verses. I have read it today in preparation for the beginning of my week-long endeavour.
Several items have caught my attention, the first of which in the opening paragraph! The word I have underlined heavily in the image above is “feminism”; the full passage reads:
… nowadays, when the Muslim world is dealing with such universal issues as globalization, the environment, combating terrorism and drugs, issues of medical ethics, and feminism, evidence to support the various arguments is sought in the Qur’an.
The position of women in the Muslim faith is one of the issues which I am most looking forward to exploring. I was interested to note (p. xxxiii) that the term walad means ‘child’ in Qur’anic Arabic and is non-gender-specific. In modern Arabic, however, it ‘can only mean ‘boy’ or ‘son”, according to the author. Haleem also discusses the importance of context to interpretation of the Qur’an’s teaching. The common belief that a man’s testimony is equal to that of two women is misguided, he says: the text refers on this point only to property disputes; and at any rate, modern scholars ‘take the view that the cultural context is different now and that a woman can be as well educated as a man, or even better. Therefore they confine this verse [2: 282] to its cultural context and allow a woman to give witness alone’. (See pp. xxv – xxvii.)
One theme which has already become prominent is that of solidarity and unity on the basis on religion: it was Muhammad’s aim to unite the tribes of the Arabian peninsula. The Qur’an, Haleem writes, even seeks to unite Jews and Christians with Muslims under islam—total devotion to God. Near the end of his life, Muhammad declared ‘equality and solidarity between all Muslims.’ (pp. xii – xiii) What I want to discover is if this was intended as was solidarity in certain political regimes: if one was loyal to the cause, one was equal, or a ‘true’ member of the group. Or is everyone equal in the eyes of Allah, regardless of their relationship to the group?
Finally, I want to note how the revelations of the Qur’an to Muhammad are depicted in the introduction (p. xiv):
When he experienced the ‘state of revelation’, those around him were able to observe his visible, audible and sensory reactions. His face would become flushed and he would fall silent and appear as if his thoughts were far away, his body would become limp as if he were asleep, a humming sound would be heard about him, and sweat would appear on his face, even on winter days. This state would last for a brief period and as it passed the Prophet would immediately recite new verses of the Qur’an.
I have to say that I am not convinced by this. Consuming spicy food could bring on a sweat, while going limp and humming is as easy as, well, going limp and humming. As regards the verses which would be revealed at these times, I cannot help but notice how convenient their content was to the situation of the Muslims of the period. When a broad tribal alliance had been achieved, ‘the revelations began to contain legislation on all aspects of individual and communal life, as for the first time the Muslims had their own state.’ (p. xii) God has an excellent sense of timing, it seems.
Such are my initial thoughts.
Day one, pt.1 – al-Fatiha and al-Baqara 1-141
This is the first section of my reading plan, and took me very little time to complete, even allowing for extensive highlighting and notation. That is not to say, however, that I did not find it interesting.
What struck me most forcefully in this section was the text’s reliance on Jewish Scripture: in building a basis for God’s relationship with the Muslim believers, Muhammad references Genesis and Exodus fairly extensively, apparently establishing the justification for God’s dominance over humans. 2:28-29 contain an objection one hears often from committed religious believers: ‘how can you reject God when He has created you?’ etc.; “It was He who created all that is on the earth for you”. While this is unlikely to be true—I think Carl Sagan articulated his objection most eloquently: “pick another dot“—it does appear that the Qur’an uses the works of the God of the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, if you prefer, as support for this claim and as background for its own commandments.
This brings me to another prominent point of interest, which is the attempt at inclusion of, or at least continuity with, other faiths made by the text. Jews and Christians are “People of the Book” and the Qur’anic revelations are presented as the continuing commandments of their God. 2:62 says that
The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.
Later, however, it seems that belief in the Qur’anic revelation is necessary, even for the People of the Book (2:104-105):
Believers, do not say [to the Prophet], ‘Ra’ina‘, but say, ‘Unzurna‘, and listen [to him]: an agonizing torment awaits those who ignore [God's words]. Neither those People of the Book who disbelieve nor the idolaters would like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord, but God chooses for His grace whoever He will: His bounty has no limits.
The idea of God choosing for His grace whoever He will is an interesting one, to which this section of the text adds further detail; and the news is not good for unbelievers! To begin with, “Whoever exchanges faith for disbelief has strayed far from the right path” (2:108—whether for good reason or not, it seems); but it also appears that we may not have a choice in the matter (2:6-7):
As for those who disbelieve, it makes no difference whether you warn them or not: they will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and their eyes are covered. They will have great torment.
That sounds very similar to the events described in the New Testament Revelation: God hardens the hearts of some, who cannot and will not believe. Which seems rather unfair. How is the reader of the Qur’an enjoined to believe, then? One must have faith (2:118-119):
Those who have no knowledge also say, ‘If only God would speak to us!’ or ‘If only a miraculous sign would come to us!’ People before them said the same things: their hearts are all alike. We have made Our signs clear enough to those who have solid faith. We have sent you [Prophet] with the truth, bearing good news and warning.
But surely faith is impossible until one has been convinced? And there is nothing about the nature of the world which demonstrates its creation by God—certainly there is nothing convincing in the manner of the revelation as Haleem has described it to us. God is the ‘enemy’ of those who disbelieve; 2:99 says “For We have sent down clear messages to you and only those who defy [God] would refuse to believe them.” This is similar to, and as unconvincing as, parts of the Gospel of John and Romans 1:20:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Scientific advances have rendered these simplistic explanations for the existence of the world irrelevant. I would like, briefly, to note a couple of places in which the Qur’an demonstrates a lack of knowledge of science, and of evolutionary theory in particular. 2:65 reads, “You know about those of you [the Israelites] who broke the Sabbath, and so We said to them, ‘Be like apes! Be outcasts!’” The translator’s footnote says:
This is understood by some as ‘physically turn into apes’ but in fact it is a figure of speech—the structure ‘be apes’ is like ‘be stones/iron’ in 17:50. Just as the Qur’an describes the disbelievers as blind, deaf, and dumb, here the transgressors are apes.
Firstly, the disbelievers are so disabled by God’s hand; secondly, humans are apes. More intelligent than other apes, but that is not to say that the others are unintelligent. The concept of non-human animals as ‘lower’ appears also in 2:26, where gnats are described as ‘lowly’. The arbitrary division of nature into ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ is a human conceit: George Carlin put it most succinctly (starting at 2min20sec):
Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did it happen that we passed chickens in goodness? Name six ways we’re better than chickens. See? No one can do it! You know why? ‘Cause chickens are decent people! Don’t see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do ya? Nah… You don’t see a chicken strapping some guy up to a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do ya?
Interestingly, 2:111 supports evidence based enquiry (about other faiths, at any rate): “Say [Prophet], ‘Produce your evidence, if you are telling the truth.’” An excellent idea.
Visit Jon’s blog, Reading the Qur’an in a week, to read the rest of the series and to engage in the discussion. You can find the next part here.